The Pastor – In His Study And His Pulpit

The Pastor in His Study

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

Fling him into his office, tear the office sign from the door and nail up a sign, “Study.”

Take him off the mailing list. Lock him up with his books and his Bible. Slam him down on his knees before texts and broken hearts and the lives of a superficial flock and a holy God. Force him to be the one man in the community who knows about God. Throw him into the ring to box with God until he learns how short his arms are. Engage him to wrestle with God all night long and let him come out only when he’s bruised and beaten into being a blessing.

Shut his mouth forever spouting remarks. Stop his tongue forever tripping lightly over every nonessential. Require him to have something to say before he dares break the silence and bend his knees in the lonesome valley of suffering. Burn his eyes with weary study. Wreck his emotional poise with worry over his life before God. Make him exchange his pious stance for a humble walk with God and man. Make him spend and be spent for the glory of God. Rip out his telephone. Burn up his ecclesiastical success sheets.

Put water in his gas tank. Give him a Bible and tie him to the pulpit and make him preach the Word of the Living God. Test him. Quiz him. Examine him. Humiliate him for his ignorance of things divine. Shame him for his good comprehension of finances, game scores and politics. Laugh at his frustrated effort to play psychiatrist. Form a choir and raise a chant and haunt him with it night and day. Sir, we would see Jesus. And when, at last, he does enter the pulpit, ask him if he has a Word from God. If he doesn’t, then dismiss him.

Tell him you can read the morning paper. You can digest the television commentaries. You can think through the day’s superficial problems. You can manage the community’s weary fund drives. You can bless the sordid baked potatoes and green beans, ad infinitum, better than he can. Command him not to come back until he’s read and reread, written and rewritten, until he can stand up worn and forlorn and say, “Thus says the Lord.”

Break him across the board of his ill-gotten popularity. Smack him hard with his own prestige. Corner him with questions about God. Cover him with

demands for celestial wisdom and give him no escape until he’s back against the wall of the Word.

Sit down before him and listen to the only word he has left, God’s Word. Let him be totally ignorant of the down-street gossip, but give him a chapter, and order him to walk around it, camp on it, sup with it, and come at last to speak it backward and forward until all he says rings with the truth of eternity.

And when he’s burned out by the flaming Word, when he’s consumed at last by the fiery grace blazing through him, when he’s privileged to translate that truth of God to man and finally transferred from earth to Heaven, then bear him away gently, and blow a muted trumpet, and lay him down softly and place a two-edged sword on his coffin, and raise the tomb triumphant, for he was a brave soldier of the Word. And ere he died, he had become a man of God.

– Dr. John MacArthur

The Pastor in the Pulpit

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.” – 2 Timothy 4:1,2 KJV

“I call you this day to wield the sword, to hold forth the mirror, to scatter the seed, to serve the milk, to hold up the lamp, to spread the flame, to swing the hammer, to stop with the secular wisdom in the pulpit, cancel the entertainment in the church, and fire the drama team. Get rid of the silliness, unplug the colored lights, put the pulpit back in the center of the building, stand up like a man, open the Bible, lift it up, let it out, and let it fly. It is the invincible power of the inerrant Word.”

– Dr. Steve Lawson

Before You Convert To Roman Catholicism

Repost of an article from the year 2011

Roman Catholicism has a gospel that does not give peace, because it fundamentally violates the Scriptural teaching on how one is made right with God. Rome has a false gospel that cannot save, hence, I have no reason to abandon the peace I have with God through Christ’s perfect atonement for the treadmill of Rome’s sacramental system of salvation… the person who has embraced the gospel of grace has not only landed his boat on the far side [of the Tiber River], but has torn the boat apart to use the wood as a pulpit from which to proclaim freedom in Christ to those trapped on the other shore. – Dr. James White

At his blog at www.aomin.org, Dr. White also writes:

Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

TOP TEN LIST
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my “Top Ten List” in response to this fine inquiry.

10. Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome’s claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

9. Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?

8. Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

7. Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome’s ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome’s answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn’t Rome’s magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen’s Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

6. Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

5. Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome’s doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

4. Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you can approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don’t believe these things anymore?

3. Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that’s a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that’s the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ’s will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?

2. Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus’ cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?

And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father’s will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God’s elect?

Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ cannot?

2 Peter 3:9 Teaches Sovereign Election

2 Peter 3:9, without doubt, is the single most popular verse used by Arminians/synergists to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none. The meaning of the verse is simply assumed, and because of this, no time is taken to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. I have to admit that I made this exact assumption for the first couple of decades of my Christian life, even as a pastor. I was a synergist and the synergistic interpretation seemed obviously correct to me. Because of this, I saw no need to study the text in order to examine my traditions. In this regard, it’s been well said, “those most enslaved to tradition are those who think they do not have any.”

The Arminian/Synergist Interpretation

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He self identifies as an Arminian. Insisting that 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaches much the same truth as 2 Peter 3:9, Olson writes these words,

“Above all Arminians insist that God is a good and loving God, who truly desires the salvation of all people. Note 1 Timothy 2:3–4: “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; and 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Arminians regard these and similar passages of Scripture as clearly and unequivocally pointing to God’s universal desire for salvation of every person.” 1

But is this interpretation correct? To answer this question, let us begin by reading the verse in its context, beginning with the first portion of the chapter:

2 Peter 3:1-9 – “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Exegesis of the Text

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s second coming. He is still coming and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. (v. 10) The second thing to notice is that the verse in question (v.9) speaks of the wishing or willing of God (depending on the translation utilized). “God is not willing” for something to happen.

Theologians have long recognized that there are three ways in which the will of God is spoken of in Scripture.

There is what is called the Sovereign Decretive Will, sometimes referred to as the Sovereign efficacious will. This refers to the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is something that always happens. Nothing can thwart this will (Isa 46:9-11). This will is also known as the secret will of God because it is hidden to us until it comes to pass in the course of time.

Secondly, there is the Preceptive Will of God. This is God’s will revealed in His law, commandments or precepts. As the course of human history reveals, people have the power to break these commandments and do so every day. It is important to state that although men have the power to break these precepts, they do not have the right to do so. His creatures are under obligation to obey all His commandments and will face His judgment for not doing so.

Thirdly, we have God’s Will of Disposition. Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient.”2

There are many in the Reformed community who look at 2 Peter 3:9 and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. And yet, to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell. John Frame expresses this view as he writes, “God’s will is sometimes thwarted because he wills it to be, because he has given one of his desires precedence over another.” And again, “God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends.”3

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I am convinced of a different view.

What follows is a lengthy quote by Dr. R.C. Sproul. He writes, “Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, ‘God is not willing that any should perish,’ and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is possible and attractive to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”4

I find Dr. Sproul’s logic here convincing. So let’s ask a further question of the text, namely, Who are the “all” and who are the “us”? Are these references to all people everywhere on planet earth?

When we follow the pronouns of the passage the answer becomes immediately apparent. The people Peter is addressing are clearly identified. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is vitally important.

But surely “all” means “all,” right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. When a school teacher is in a classroom and is about to start the class and asks the students, “Are we all here?”, he is not asking if everyone on planet Earth is in the classroom. Because of the context in which the question is framed, we understand that he is referring to all within a certain class or type; in this case, all the students in the class. To say that he is referring to all people on planet earth would be to grossly misinterpret the intended meaning of his question. So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without exception, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group of people and not to all of mankind. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…” (2 Peter 3:1)

According to the first chapter in this epistle, this group had “received a faith of the same kind as ours” by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1, NASB).

Can we be even more specific about who this group is? Indeed, yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first letter makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 begins this way, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…”

As we read through the passage in 2 Peter 3, there is nothing that would indicate that the audience changes in any way. The same group is being addressed throughout. So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (emphasis mine)

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen. Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell.

As has been established, if God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, as Dr. James White asserts, “Peter limits his use of ‘all’ and ‘any’ to a specific audience, ‘you.’”5 In other words, the “any” that God wills not to perish is limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect; and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group.

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. The elect are not justified by election, but by putting their faith in Christ. If a person is to be saved they must come to Christ in repentance and faith. The doctrine of Sovereign Election simply explains who will do so. The elect will. Jesus assured us of this when He said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37) and is confirmed by the testimony of Luke in Acts 13:48 when he observed that “… all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” All who had the appointment, made the appointment.

Conclusion

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith. Therefore, Christ has not yet returned to the Earth in power and glory. Christ’s second coming may seem to be delayed but God is being very longsuffering toward us (you, beloved) not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. Rather than denying election, 2 Peter 3:9, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it. The Lord Jesus will return, but only after all His elect, beloved people have come to repentance.

Bibliography

  1. Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism electronic [Kindle] edition, p. 68
  2. R. C. Sproul Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Tyndale Elevate; Illustrated edition (1998)
  3. John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterean & Reformed, 2001), 113
  4. James White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Calvary Press; Revised edition (May 15, 2000)
  5. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, Tyndale Elevate (April 6, 2021)

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

King’s Church is a Reformed Baptist Church. What does this mean? The following article is written by a pastor friend of mine, Travis Peterson. He is a remarkable man in that he serves his flock Providence Reformed Church in Las Vegas even as he is legally blind. He is a very gifted teacher of God’s word and this article is a helpful explanation regarding the question, ‘What is a Reformed Baptist Church?’ Pastor Travis writes: No matter what kind of church one claims to belong to, that label will carry with it definitions and distinctions which make one church different from another. As taxonomic classifications identify organisms from kingdom down to species, certain distinctions help us to know what a church is when we see what they claim to be. When one sees the word “reformed” in a church’s name or identity, a few possible meanings may be present. For example, a church may suggest that being reformed is particularly tied to a Presbyterian denomination or confession, denying that any can be reformed who are not part of that group. More loosely, another may use the word reformed simply to mean Calvinistic as concerns the church’s beliefs relating to salvation. Still others fall somewhere in the middle, believing that a reformed church is one which has some particular distinctives, but which is not necessarily Presbyterian—Reformed Baptists for example. Because Reformed Baptist is the context of Providence Reformed Church where I serve, and because many wrestle with exactly how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is, I thought it might be useful to pull together a couple of threads of thought and share them here. This post will include a summary of several key ideas which would take you a while to explain to someone else. Next week, I hope to lay out some strategies for explaining Reformed Baptist to others in a short and simple way. I am not here claiming to be the authority over how the phrase is used, but am only hoping to help explain what we mean in our church when we say “Reformed Baptist.”  Reformed Baptist churches are:1
  • The Regulative Principle of Worship
  • Covenant Theology
  • Calvinism
  • The Law of God
  • Confessional
The Regulative Principle of Worship – This teaching limits the acts of a church in worship to those which God commanded in Scripture. This distinguishes Reformed Baptist churches from others which practice the normative principle of worship, the belief that all things are permissible in worship so long as they are not forbidden in Scripture. Covenant Theology – This doctrine accepts the covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. The covenant of redemption is the plan among the persons of the trinity to rescue a people for the glory of God. The covenant of works is the covenant Adam failed to keep when he disobeyed God in the garden and brought condemnation on humanity resulting in the truth that no human being can now earn his or her way to God through good works. The covenant of Grace is the free gift of salvation by grace through faith in Christ who lived perfection and died as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of God’s people. Believers in covenant theology understand that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises from the Old Testament and that the Bible is a unified account of God’s accomplishment of his plan of salvation.  Covenant theologians, because of these beliefs, are distinct from dispensationalists.  Calvinism – Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of all who are saved. Calvinism embraces sovereign election and denies that people come to Christ without God first moving them to do so.  The Law of God – A reformed understanding of God’s law includes the belief that the moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments and that no one will fully understand the gospel apart from the law of God. Reformed Baptists will often see the law of God as useful to show a person their need for salvation, to help societies to restrain evil and destructive behavior, and to help the saved to understand the character of God and what pleases him.  Confessional – Reformed Baptists often subscribe to the Second London Baptist Confession (written in 1677, published in 1689). This is not to say that there may not be small points that require further explanation or with which the church may quibble. Yet the Reformed Baptist Church will declare the confession to be a true summary of the church’s beliefs. While different individuals or churches may disagree with one or more of the points above, they are a fair summary of what is broadly assumed to be a Reformed Baptist Church. Next week, we will look at how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is in a short and simple way. 1 The 1st 3 items of this list are found in Daniel Hyde, Welcome to a Reformed Church (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2010), Introduction. 2 Baptist began to distinguish themselves during the period of the English Reformation along with Congregationalists. Such Baptists are not linked with the anabaptist movement. 3 This list comes from Tom Hicks, “What is a Reformed Baptist?” (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Ministries) [article on-line]; accessed 15 July 2023; available from  https://founders.org/articles/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/; Internet.
  • Christian
  • Protestant
  • Reformed
  • Baptist
Christian – Christian churches embrace the true message of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The basic beliefs of Christians are often summarized in classic creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition. These statements focus particularly on the identity of the one true God existing as trinity and the person of Jesus as truly God and truly man. This distinction separates Christianity from other world religions and cults which deny the trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, or the basic gospel.  Protestant – A Protestant church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, embraces the five Solas of the Reformation. These churches believe that the Scripture alone is the final and highest authority for the church on earth. They teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone. Protestants recovered these biblical doctrines during the era known as the Protestant Reformation. Reformed – A subset of Protestant churches, Reformed churches embrace the beliefs of key doctrinal confessions such as the Belgic, Westminster, or Second London confessions. Much of what is recovered in these confessions beyond the basic faith of the classic creeds has to do with the authority of Scripture, the structure of the church, and the doctrine of salvation including election. Reformed churches are distinct from other Protestant churches which do not embrace these confessions and doctrines. Baptist – A Baptist church is a Protestant church that expressly declares that only those who are saved by Jesus are part of the true church. Baptists believe that those who are saved obey Christ through the ordinance of believer’s baptism as a public declaration of their faith. Baptists value the autonomy of local congregations and the congregational voice in church government. These beliefs distinguish Baptist churches from our Presbyterian brothers.2 Other theological and practical particulars are often seen as identifying Reformed Baptists as different from non-Reformed Baptists. One author suggests the following five distinctives:3
  • The Regulative Principle of Worship
  • Covenant Theology
  • Calvinism
  • The Law of God
  • Confessional
The Regulative Principle of Worship – This teaching limits the acts of a church in worship to those which God commanded in Scripture. This distinguishes Reformed Baptist churches from others which practice the normative principle of worship, the belief that all things are permissible in worship so long as they are not forbidden in Scripture. Covenant Theology – This doctrine accepts the covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. The covenant of redemption is the plan among the persons of the trinity to rescue a people for the glory of God. The covenant of works is the covenant Adam failed to keep when he disobeyed God in the garden and brought condemnation on humanity resulting in the truth that no human being can now earn his or her way to God through good works. The covenant of Grace is the free gift of salvation by grace through faith in Christ who lived perfection and died as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of God’s people. Believers in covenant theology understand that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises from the Old Testament and that the Bible is a unified account of God’s accomplishment of his plan of salvation.  Covenant theologians, because of these beliefs, are distinct from dispensationalists.  Calvinism – Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of all who are saved. Calvinism embraces sovereign election and denies that people come to Christ without God first moving them to do so.  The Law of God – A reformed understanding of God’s law includes the belief that the moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments and that no one will fully understand the gospel apart from the law of God. Reformed Baptists will often see the law of God as useful to show a person their need for salvation, to help societies to restrain evil and destructive behavior, and to help the saved to understand the character of God and what pleases him.  Confessional – Reformed Baptists often subscribe to the Second London Baptist Confession (written in 1677, published in 1689). This is not to say that there may not be small points that require further explanation or with which the church may quibble. Yet the Reformed Baptist Church will declare the confession to be a true summary of the church’s beliefs. While different individuals or churches may disagree with one or more of the points above, they are a fair summary of what is broadly assumed to be a Reformed Baptist Church. Next week, we will look at how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is in a short and simple way. 1 The 1st 3 items of this list are found in Daniel Hyde, Welcome to a Reformed Church (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2010), Introduction. 2 Baptist began to distinguish themselves during the period of the English Reformation along with Congregationalists. Such Baptists are not linked with the anabaptist movement. 3 This list comes from Tom Hicks, “What is a Reformed Baptist?” (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Ministries) [article on-line]; accessed 15 July 2023; available from  https://founders.org/articles/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/; Internet.

Three Views On Man’s Condition

1. PELAGIANISM – Salvation is all of man (human monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS WELL

Named after the British monk Pelagius (354 – 418 A.D.)

Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin affected no one but himself. Those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before the Fall, neutral towards sin. Human beings are able to live free from sin if they want to.

Pelagius read one of Augustine’s prayers which upset him greatly. Augustine had prayed “Lord, command what You will and grant what You command.” Pelagius thought that if God commanded something, for Him to remain just, man would need to have the ability to do what God commanded without grace. There would be no need for God to “grant” what He commanded. Augustine defended his view that although God commanded, He needs to grant grace to us so that we can be empowered to do what He commands.

Pelagianism is a humanistic, man centered teaching and while it is very positive, it limits the nature and scope of sin and flatly denies the necessity of God’s grace. Pelagius’ view was condemned as heresy by the Church, as it has no basis in Scripture. However, the view never really went away and is still very prevalent in our own day. As one man said, “we are born Pelagians at heart.” We think we can do anything God commands or achieve salvation without the need for grace.

2. SYNERGISM (through the actions of more than one – cooperation)

BELIEF: MAN IS SICK, EVEN MORTALLY SICK

Observing that if man was as healthy as the optimists say, then surely war, disease, starvation, poverty and such problems we face today would have been eliminated by now. Since such problems have not been fixed, Synergists conclude that something is basically wrong with human nature. Yet, they contend that the situation is not hopeless. Its bad, perhaps even desperate, but not hopeless. We haven’t blown ourselves off the planet yet so there’s no need to call the mortician yet.

Human nature has been damaged by the Fall. The will is NOT enslaved to sin, but is capable of believing in Christ, even prior to regeneration (although not entirely apart from God’s grace). Every sinner retains the ability to choose for or against God, either cooperating with God’s Spirit unto salvation or resisting God’s grace unto damnation.

Election is conditional, determined by individual choice: the only people God has chosen are those whom He already knew would believe. The faith He foresees is not exclusively a divine gift but partly a human decision. Therefore, the ultimate cause of salvation is not God’s choice of the sinner but the sinner’s choice of God.

Under this broad heading of synergism, we have two basic schools of thought:

A. SEMI-PELAGIANISM – which teaches that man initiates, God helps.

“… Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God.” R. Kyle (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

B. ARMINIANISM – which teaches that God initiates by offering grace, and that mankind either does or does not cooperate with that grace.

This belief, though quite popular in our day, would still be classed as synergistic because regeneration takes place through the cooperation of man with God’s grace.

3. AUGUSTINIANISM (Reformed) – God saves by His Divine power alone (Divine monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS DEAD

Each of the members of the Trinity are at work in the salvation of sinners. God the Father elects a people for salvation, Jesus the Son redeems them in His atoning work on the cross, and God, the Holy Spirit, regenerates them, bringing them to life.

Lazarus, being a lifeless corpse in the tomb, did not cooperate with Christ with regard to his own resurrection. Jesus simply cried out “Lazarus come forth!” and this call was powerful and sufficient in and of itself to bring dead Lazarus back to life. Christ did not interview the dead man Lazarus and ask if he would like to be resurrected, and once he got the “all clear” went ahead with his plan, now having obtained Lazarus’ permission and assent. Nor did Lazarus, once brought back to life, immediately take Jesus to court in attempt to sue him for violating his free will – his libertarian rights as a dead man to stay dead! No, for the rest of his earthly life, Lazarus was deeply grateful for the unspeakable mercy he had received from the Master.

This is a beautiful picture of what God does in our regeneration from spiritual death. Man, once receiving this grace of regeneration, then infallibly responds in faith to the effectual call of God.

I believe this is the biblical description regarding the state of man before he is regenerated. He is “dead in trespasses and sins.” (Eph. 2:1).

Augustinianism is named after Saint Augustine of the 5th Century A.D.. As far as his relationship to God is concerned, man is a lifeless corpse, unable to make a single move toward God, or even respond to God, unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life. Although spiritually dead, it is a strange death since he is nevertheless up and about actively practicing sin. He is what horror stories call a zombie – dead but walking around. This is a fair description of what Paul says about human nature in its lost condition. Apart from Jesus Christ, these sinning human corpses are the living dead. Man’s will is enslaved (John 8:34).

Man has a will, most definitely, but this will never wants God (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7), without the direct and gracious intervention of God. The sinner actively practices evil. He is also by nature an object of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3). BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy…. even when we were dead… made us alive (by grace you have been saved)… (Eph. 2:4, 5)

This truth is demonstrated in many passages in scripture, but perhaps the clearest is Ephesians 2:1-10.

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Colossians 2:13 also states, “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him…”

Notice that both in Ephesians 2:5, and Colossians 2:13, it was when we were dead that God made us alive. Not one mention is made of our role in all this, such as, “when you were dead, you decided to cooperate with God’s grace, and He then raised you…” I don’t know how the Apostle Paul could have taught Divine monergism more clearly. It was when we were dead that God made us alive.

Augustinianism removes all ground for boasting, demolishes all human pride and exalts God’s grace as the sole efficient cause of a sinner’s salvation. As Jonah 2:9 says, “Salvation is of the Lord.” Therefore the glory for it goes to God, and to God alone.

“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” – Rom. 9:16